Me. Rev. Stat. » Title 19-A
Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19-A, § 1751 (2026)

Inconvenient forum

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
1.  Court of this State an inconvenient forum.  A court of this State that has jurisdiction under this chapter to make a child custody determination may decline to exercise its jurisdiction at any time if it determines that it is an inconvenient forum under the circumstances and that a court of another state is a more appropriate forum. The issue of inconvenient forum may be raised upon motion of a party, the court's own motion or request of another court.  
[PL 1999, c. 486, §3 (NEW); PL 1999, c. 486, §6 (AFF).]
2.  Factors relevant to determining whether inconvenient forum.  Before determining whether it is an inconvenient forum, a court of this State shall consider whether it is appropriate for a court of another state to exercise jurisdiction. For this purpose, the court shall allow the parties to submit information and shall consider all relevant factors, including:  
A. Whether domestic violence has occurred and is likely to continue in the future and which state could best protect the parties and the child;   [PL 1999, c. 486, §3 (NEW); PL 1999, c. 486, §6 (AFF).]
B. The length of time the child has resided outside this State;   [PL 1999, c. 486, §3 (NEW); PL 1999, c. 486, §6 (AFF).]
C. The distance between the court in this State and the court in the state that would assume jurisdiction;   [PL 1999, c. 486, §3 (NEW); PL 1999, c. 486, §6 (AFF).]
D. The relative financial circumstances of the parties;   [PL 1999, c. 486, §3 (NEW); PL 1999, c. 486, §6 (AFF).]
E. Any agreement of the parties as to which state should assume jurisdiction;   [PL 1999, c. 486, §3 (NEW); PL 1999, c. 486, §6 (AFF).]
F. The nature and location of the evidence required to resolve the pending litigation, including testimony of the child;   [PL 1999, c. 486, §3 (NEW); PL 1999, c. 486, §6 (AFF).]
G. The ability of the court of each state to decide the issue expeditiously and the procedures necessary to present the evidence; and   [PL 1999, c. 486, §3 (NEW); PL 1999, c. 486, §6 (AFF).]
H. The familiarity of the court of each state with the facts and issues in the pending litigation.   [PL 1999, c. 486, §3 (NEW); PL 1999, c. 486, §6 (AFF).]
[PL 1999, c. 486, §3 (NEW); PL 1999, c. 486, §6 (AFF).]
3.  Determination of inconvenient forum.  If a court of this State determines that it is an inconvenient forum and that a court of another state is a more appropriate forum, it shall stay the proceedings upon condition that a child custody proceeding be promptly commenced in another designated state and may impose any other condition the court considers just and proper.  
[PL 1999, c. 486, §3 (NEW); PL 1999, c. 486, §6 (AFF).]
4.  Divorce or other proceeding.  A court of this State may decline to exercise its jurisdiction under this chapter if a child custody determination is incidental to an action for divorce or another proceeding while still retaining jurisdiction over the divorce or other proceeding.  
[PL 1999, c. 486, §3 (NEW); PL 1999, c. 486, §6 (AFF).]
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1999, c. 486, §3 (NEW). PL 1999, c. 486, §6 (AFF).
The Revisor's Office cannot provide legal advice or interpretation of Maine law to the public.
If you need legal advice, please consult a qualified attorney.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases, 2000–2015 · leading case: Shanoski v. Miller, 2001 ME 139 (Me. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Shanoski v. Miller, 2001 ME 139 (Me. 2001). · cites it 4× “The court ruled that Maine had jurisdiction, but it stated that the issue was whether it should decline to exercise that jurisdiction on the ground of inconvenient forum.”
Cole v. Cushman, 2008 ME 72 (Me. 2008). · cites it 5× “§ 1738A(f)(2), (h); 19-A M.R.S. § 1751. [¶ 10] Pursuant to the UCCJEA, a Maine court “may decline to exercise its jurisdiction at any time if it determines that it is an inconvenient forum under the circumstances and that a court of another state is a more appropriate forum.”
Rainbow v. Ransom, 2010 ME 22 (Me. 2010). · cites it 3× “See 19-A M.R.S. § 1751 (2)(A). 3 The UCCJEA specifically states that Maine courts can consider, amongst other factors, “which state could best protect the parties and the child.”
Fitzgerald v. Bilodeau, 2006 ME 122 (Me. 2006). · cites it 2× “) denying his motion to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds pursuant to 19-A M.R.S. § 1751 (2005). 1 Because the decision is interlocutory, not a final judgment, and not within one of the “narrow and well-defined” exceptions to the final judgment rule, we dismiss the appeal.”
Barclay v. Eckert, 2000 ME 10 (Me. 2000). · cites it 2× “A court may nevertheless decline jurisdiction pursuant to the doctrine of forum non conveniens.”
Hamilton v. Hamilton, 976 A.2d 924 (Me. 2009). · cites it 4× “” 19-A M.R.S. § 1751(1). [¶ 17] In order to assess whether Maine is an inconvenient forum, the UCCJEA requires courts to “allow the parties to submit information” and to consider all relevant factors, including those listed in 19-A M.”
Shanoski v. Miller (Me. Super. Ct 2001). · cites it 4× “” 19-A M.R.S.A. § 1751 uniform cmt. A court could also consider “the different procedural and evidentiary laws of the two States, as well as the flexibility of the court dockets.”
In Re B.N.W. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005). “19-A M.R.S.A. § 1751(2). The first listed factor is whether domestic violence has occurred and which state can best protect the parties and the child.”
Josiah L.R. Willey v. Emily D. Willey, 2015 ME 102 (Me. 2015). “” 2 See 19-A M.R.S. § 1751(2), (3) (2014). On Josiah’s motion, the District Court stayed its contingent order of dismissal pending this appeal.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19-A, § 1751(1) — 4 cases
Barclay v. Eckert, 2000 ME 10 (Me. 2000). “A court may nevertheless decline jurisdiction pursuant to the doctrine of forum non conveniens.”
Cole v. Cushman, 2008 ME 72 (Me. 2008). “§ 1738A(f)(2), (h); 19-A M.R.S. § 1751. [¶ 10] Pursuant to the UCCJEA, a Maine court “may decline to exercise its jurisdiction at any time if it determines that it is an inconvenient forum under the circumstances and that a court of another state is a more appropriate forum.”
Fitzgerald v. Bilodeau, 2006 ME 122 (Me. 2006). “) denying his motion to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds pursuant to 19-A M.R.S. § 1751 (2005). 1 Because the decision is interlocutory, not a final judgment, and not within one of the “narrow and well-defined” exceptions to the final judgment rule, we dismiss the appeal.”
Hamilton v. Hamilton, 976 A.2d 924 (Me. 2009). “” 19-A M.R.S. § 1751(1). [¶ 17] In order to assess whether Maine is an inconvenient forum, the UCCJEA requires courts to “allow the parties to submit information” and to consider all relevant factors, including those listed in 19-A M.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19-A, § 1751(2) — 7 cases
Shanoski v. Miller, 2001 ME 139 (Me. 2001). “The court ruled that Maine had jurisdiction, but it stated that the issue was whether it should decline to exercise that jurisdiction on the ground of inconvenient forum.”
Cole v. Cushman, 2008 ME 72 (Me. 2008). “§ 1738A(f)(2), (h); 19-A M.R.S. § 1751. [¶ 10] Pursuant to the UCCJEA, a Maine court “may decline to exercise its jurisdiction at any time if it determines that it is an inconvenient forum under the circumstances and that a court of another state is a more appropriate forum.”
Rainbow v. Ransom, 2010 ME 22 (Me. 2010). “See 19-A M.R.S. § 1751 (2)(A). 3 The UCCJEA specifically states that Maine courts can consider, amongst other factors, “which state could best protect the parties and the child.”
Hamilton v. Hamilton, 976 A.2d 924 (Me. 2009). “” 19-A M.R.S. § 1751(1). [¶ 17] In order to assess whether Maine is an inconvenient forum, the UCCJEA requires courts to “allow the parties to submit information” and to consider all relevant factors, including those listed in 19-A M.”
Shanoski v. Miller (Me. Super. Ct 2001). “” 19-A M.R.S.A. § 1751 uniform cmt. A court could also consider “the different procedural and evidentiary laws of the two States, as well as the flexibility of the court dockets.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19-A, § 1751(2)(A) — 1 case
Rainbow v. Ransom, 2010 ME 22 (Me. 2010). “See 19-A M.R.S. § 1751 (2)(A). 3 The UCCJEA specifically states that Maine courts can consider, amongst other factors, “which state could best protect the parties and the child.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19-A, § 1751(2)(B) — 2 cases
Shanoski v. Miller, 2001 ME 139 (Me. 2001). “The court ruled that Maine had jurisdiction, but it stated that the issue was whether it should decline to exercise that jurisdiction on the ground of inconvenient forum.”
Cole v. Cushman, 2008 ME 72 (Me. 2008). “§ 1738A(f)(2), (h); 19-A M.R.S. § 1751. [¶ 10] Pursuant to the UCCJEA, a Maine court “may decline to exercise its jurisdiction at any time if it determines that it is an inconvenient forum under the circumstances and that a court of another state is a more appropriate forum.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19-A, § 1751(2)(F) — 1 case
Shanoski v. Miller (Me. Super. Ct 2001). “” 19-A M.R.S.A. § 1751 uniform cmt. A court could also consider “the different procedural and evidentiary laws of the two States, as well as the flexibility of the court dockets.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.